We have perused the record produced by the learned A.P.P. The learned A.P.P. states that it is true that on the arrest panchnama signature of the petitioner and her son were not obtained but there is arrest form drawn at the time of arrest. She states that the petitioner and her son declined to sign on the arrest form.

2.We may note here that in the station diary entry no.26 which is made at the time of arrest of the petitioner and her son, there is not even a reference to the arrest form. There is no entry in the station diary that arrest form was drawn and the petitioner and her son declined to sign the same.

Moreover, in the affidavit of Shri Raosaheb Baburao Sardesai dated 3rd August 2012, there is no reference whatsoever to the arrest form being drawn.

2 crwp1857

The learned A.P.P seeks time to file additional affidavit. The prayer will have to be rejected for the simple reason that in the petition not only the violation of directions issued by the Apex Court in case of of D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal [1997

(1) SCC 416] has been alleged, but the directions in the Judgment have been reproduced in the petition. Moreover, the station diary entry does not contain such reference to such arrest form. We have perused the original arrest form of the petitioner and her son. Prima facie, it appears to us that endorsement that arrestees declined to sign the same has been subsequently made as the handwriting appears to be different than the handwriting in which various details have been filled in. In any case, additional affidavit cannot be permitted to be filed to fill up any lacuna.

As far as giving of information of arrest to the close relative of the petitioner is concerned, the learned A.P.P stated that the petitioner's daughter Kanta was informed about her arrest. On instructions she stated that a woman constable was deputed for the said work. We may note here that there is no record to show that a constable was deputed and any report was submitted by the constable on record. The learned A.P.P on instructions states that there is no such entry in the station diary or there is no such report. We have noted that the mode by which the communication

was allegedly made to the said daughter of the

3 crwp1857

petitioner is not mentioned in the station diary. On the last date, in our order dated 20th November

2012, we have specifically noted that the said Kanta is mentally challenged. The learned A.P.P on

instructions states that she is not mentally challenged but disabled.

We have also heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P on other aspects of the case. The learned A.P.P seeks time to take instructions as regards prayer clause (b).

Stand over till 10th December 2012, to be shown at 3.00 p.m for Judgment.

(S.S.SHINDE,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)

►►►Hon. BHC Order dated 20-11-2012:

wp1857-12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1857 OF 2012

Mohini Narandas Ramawani ...Petitioner

Versus

Senior Police Inspector and others ...Respondents

M/s Anubha Rastogi i/by Gayatri Singh and Kranti the petitioner

Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, APP for the State

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

S.S. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 20th November, 2012.

P.C.

In this petition, apart from the other contention there is specific

contention raised regarding breach of directions issued by the Apex

Court in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of U.P. (1997 (1) SCC 416).

We have perused the affidavit of Raosaheb Baburao Sardesai,

Senior Police Inspector, presently attached to Vashi Police Station,

Navi Mumbai. The affidavit does not throw light on compliance with

the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of D.K.Basu. The

so called arrest Panchanama or arrest Memorandum is shown to us,

which does not bear signature of the arrestee. Though it is contended

that information regarding arrest was given to the petitioner's daughter

by name Kanta, no record is shown to us to prove in what manner such

information was given. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

j p chavan 1/2

::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2013 12:57:53 :::

wp1857-12

states that said Kanta is mentally challenged. The affidavit filed is

totally unsatisfactory.

Prima facie, the affidavit shows that the directions of the Apex

Court in the case of D.K. Basu have not been complied with. We direct

the concerned officer to remain present in this Court on 23rd November,

2012 at 3 p.m. along with entire record.

( S.S. SHINDE, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )

j p chavan 2/2

::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2013 12:57:53 :::

My Daughter, Kanta Kamwani…is Mentally Challenged…but…Police is telling the Hon. Court…that she is DISABLED !!! …I want to Show the Hon. Court… Certificate Issued by Sion Govt. Hospital + her Treatment Documents…dated 31-05-91 & 06-06-91…Clearly Stating that she is Mentally Challenged + I will Bring my Daughter to Court to Show to Hon. Justices…that she is NOT DISABLED !!!

WHY ???...What is the MOTIVE of Police…for saying that she is DISABLED ???!!!...

Because…IT IS CLEAR CRUELTY… TO LEAVE A MENTALLY CHALLENGED GIRL …ALONE AT HOME… FOR 4 DAYS…WITH SO MANY RAPES + ROBBERIES + MURDERS TAKING PLACE… As Police Did Not Inform Us That They Were Arresting Us + Nor Gave Us The Opportunity To Make Arrangements For Her Stay With Our Relatives In Mumbai !!!

I have Repeatedly said on Record that I Respect the Hon. BHC Justices and have Full Faith in the Indian Judiciary and I am sure Full Justice will be done to me by the Hon. BHC Justices in their Final Judgment.